I Pledge allegiance to the Confederate Flag

I Pledge allegiance to the Confederate Flag, and to the Southern People and the Culture for which it stands

The Confederate flag is again under attack, as it has always been, and as it always will be. It is under attack because of what it symbolizes. The problem is that to many Southerners have forgotten just what it does symbolize.

The Confederate Nation of 1860 - 1865 was the intellectual, as well as the spiritual, continuation of the United States of America as founded, planned, and formed by Southerners. It was the stated, and often repeated, position of almost all Southerners in the 1860’s that they, and the South, were the heirs of the original political theory embodied in the U. S. Constitution of 1789. In 1860 their attempted to separate from the rest of the states and form their own nation since that was the only way the South could preserve the philosophy and the virtues that had made the United States the magnificent nation it had become.

In both of these contentions, that is, the South was the true repository of the original political theory that made the United States great, and the South was the true home of the people who took the necessary actions to found, make, and preserve the original United States, Southerners have been proven by the passage of time to be correct.

The Southern colonies of Virginia, North and South Carolina and Maryland were where the majority of the original American population resided until the 1700’s despite the fact Massachusetts was settled only 13 years after Virginia and New York was settled 18 years before South Carolina. As the population of the colonies grew, the New England States and the middle Atlantic states, gained population so that by the time of the American Revolutionary War the two general areas of the north and the South were generally equal in size with a small population advantage being shown by Virginia. This slight difference in population by a southern state was to have a profound effect on the development of the United States.

First of all, the New England states managed to start a war with England, which they verbalized as "taxation without representation." In truth the problem from their point of view was the taxes on their trade. Having started the war they then promptly managed to lose it. The British, after conquering the entire north from Maine (then part of Massachusetts) to Boston, to Providence, to New York, to the new nation’s capital, Philadelphia, shifted their military forces to move against the Southern colonies. They secured their foothold in the South by capturing Savannah and Charleston and then proceeded to move inland to subdue the Southern population. They planed to catch the Virginia forces under General Washington in a coordinated attack moving down from the north, which they held, and up from the South that they thought they would also conquer.

The British army that had mastered the north found they could not defeat the Southern people. Once in the backwoods of the South they found themselves to be the beaten Army. The British defeats at Kings Mountain and Cowpens were absolute. Their Pyrrhic victories at Camden and Guilford Courthouse were tantamount to defeat. In both North Carolina and South Carolina they were so weakened they had to retreat from the area of their few "victories" within days. Their defeats at those well-known sites among others, along with their defeat at Yorktown in Virginia, led directly to their surrender.

Having secured the political freedom from England for all the colonists, Southerners then mistakenly sat back and took a smaller role in forming the new American government that operated under an "Articles of Confederation." That first attempt at forming a government fell to the firebrands of New England who has started the war and who still asserted their moral position of leadership despite their poor showing on the field of battle. These Articles of Confederation, the product of the Yankee political mind, gave too much economic self determination to the separate colonies (as the Northern colonies had demanded in an attempt to protect their shipping, trade and manufacturing) and too little power of enforcement to a central government.

After a period of six difficult years, when the Articles of Confederation failed as a form of government, another convention was called and a new form of government was drawn up. This time the convention was under the leadership of Southerners and they brought forth the document we all refer to as the U.S. Constitution. Even northern historians do not try to pretend the Constitution and the ideas embodied therein are anything other than a product of the Southern political mind. (Yankee historians cannot deny it, but they do choose to ignore it so their students grow up ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is Southern.) So, as it turns out, when the new nation found itself in political trouble it was the South which, once again, came to the rescue just as it had when the nation found itself previously in military trouble.

With the slight population advantage it enjoyed over other states, Virginia was able to give to the new nation politicians who are nothing short of demigods. Their names are revered in all areas of the civilized world wherever political theorists converge. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Randolph, Henry, Taylor and Monroe are just a few, there are many more. These men along with the leading political minds of South Carolina, Rutledge, Heyward, and, most importantly, Pinckney, saw their new nation through its birth and establishment.

The military leadership, as well as the political leadership, of the South saw the nation through its expansion. Under Southern leadership the British were defeated a second time in 1814. Under Southerners, most obviously John Tyler and Andrew Jackson, Florida was added as a state. The defeat of Mexico in 1846, under the Southern leadership of James Polk and numerous Southern military officers, established of the United States as a force to be feared. That was an astonishing accomplishment for so small and so young a nation

Thomas Jefferson, who added the Louisiana Purchase, barely escaped impeachment for his efforts. The north argued continuously against the war with Mexico that added the area from Texas to California just as they had argued against the Louisiana Purchase. One Congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, was particularly vehement against Texas being made a state. Northerners, having seen Mexico defeated and the United States enlarged all the way to the Pacific Ocean, then objected to the methods and motives of the acquisition of the Washington and Oregon territories in the northwest. Polk, who had added that vast area from Louisiana to California to Colorado to the pacific northwest, served only one term as President due to the constant attacks he sufferer in the Northern press. Left to the people of the north, the French would still control from Minnesota to Louisiana and Mexico would control from Texas to the Pacific while Canada would still include Washington, Oregon Idaho and Montana.

Every square inch of soil that now comprises the continental United States was added under a Southern president, and they did it over the strenuous political objections of the north. The provincial and mercenary Yankee people fought every effort to expand the United States. The expansion of the United States became a regional political disagreement that spread ill feeling north and South. Its accomplishment by Southerners was no small feat. It was accomplished under Southern military leadership and with much Southern blood. (Which is why Tennessee is called "The Volunteer State" and the names of Southerners are almost exclusively the only ones found on memorial tablets and monuments from Texas to California.). The expansion of the original colonies into the continental power it became was completely the results of the Southern mind and Southern leadership.

Having secured the freedom of the United States from England and then having formed and led the successful government into a new political age under a written constitution that is still the envy of the whole world, the South gave the entire military and political leadership that formed the United States into the boundaries it now enjoys. But these magnificent accomplishments were soon to be overshadowed by population shifts and the ensuing results that brings in a representative government. By the early 1820s the north had finally secured just enough additional population that it had achieved enough political clout to start protecting its first love, its money. The unfair and punitive tariffs that were passed in 1828 led to the South’s first half-hearted attempt to form its own separate government with the Nullification movement of 1832. The threat of war that South Carolina held out in 1832 then caused a negotiated modification of those laws to where the South could live with them. For the time being, the political question was settled by compromise.

While those changes pacified the political leaders of the South for the time being, some statesmen could see, even then, that if the North ever became totally dominant politically, the South would be destroyed, not just economically, but philosophically and spiritually as well. Those statesmen, with Calhoun in the lead, then started planting the intellectual seeds that led to the South’s second attempt at political freedom in 1860.

Unfortunately, in the 1840’s Yankee abolitionist introduced the new poison of the "voluntary end" of slavery as a political issue. There were attempts by many Southerners to defuse this situation by offering an economic solution. That is, Southerners offered to end slavery in the South just as England had ended it in the West Indies, by having the slave-holders paid for their losses when the slaves were freed. The abolitionist Yankees would have none of that. Their position was simple, the South could give up it slaves for free and each farmer could absorb the loss personally. There was to be no payment. To the Yankee abolitionists it was either their way or war.

The fact that the abolitionist movement became a dominant presence in the northern part of the United States from the 1840’s on is primarily because a liberal can politicize any subject and enrage any body of people regardless of the level of preexisting good will. (As current liberals have turned the simple good sense argument that one should not litter one’s own environment into the political upheaval of "the ecology movement." The effectiveness of liberal methods can currently be seen in the simple instance that most people believe such nonsense as the chemical cause of "ozone depletion" and "the greenhouse effect" despite any evidence of either. Liberals are absolutely capable, by their strident, activist natures of raising any question to harmful emotional heights.)

Unfortunately, the loss of the War for Southern Independence in 1865 caused the very thing that Southern statesmen had foreseen in the 1830’s; that is, the north became dominant and the cultural, spiritual, and economic base of the South was decimated. The loss of the war was most severely felt in the South, of course, but it has also had political repercussions in the north as well.

Without the South in a position of dominance, the leadership of the United States has gone from Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Tyler and Polk to the inept, or leftist, Grant, Harding, Arthur, Harrison and Roosevelt, among others. Plus, the ascendancy of the leftist north to national prominence has also caused the rise of leaders in the South who had to be acceptable to the north. Such spectacularly immoral or totally incompetent Southern politicians as Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are examples of the quality of the men that the South must now produce to garner northern votes. When these modern day jackals are contrasted with the demigods the South produced when unfettered by the northern voter, that in itself should be enough to make all people reject northern philosophy and northern politics and embrace all things Southern.

As the forces of the left have gained ascendancy in the United States, the pressure intensifies to completely obliterate anything that remains between them and complete leftist victory. That means that the traditional enemy of leftists, the South, must be erased in its every form. That is why leftists always demand that even symbols of the South be eradicated.

We, therefore, now have a coalition of people who want the Southern flag taken down and hidden from public view. This coalition is composed of three main groups. First of all are African-Americans, whose emotional position is totally unmitigated by any knowledge of history. Secondly, there are Yankees who have moved to the South and who, despite their remarkable political failures in their own states, have learned nothing and continue to vote leftist here too. Or either these northern imports have been transferred here to run the newspapers that are owned by the people who live outside the South. And, thirdly, there are leftist Southerners, or Southerners of "politically correct" leaning, who have apparently learned their history from the television and movies and who feel the South is a bad place because it is not egalitarian enough.

But the demands of this coalition of political thinkers need to be put in proper perspective. Before anyone starts to tell someone else how to act and how to think, it is incumbent on him to demonstrate the success of his own ideas and actions. So far the introduction and enforcement of leftist ideas in our world has led to nothing but sorrow and degeneration. The force necessary to make people live under a leftist government has been the direct cause of the murder of over one hundred million people in this century alone. Leftist political theory has enslaved and impoverished billions of people worldwide. Its introduction has weakened even such great nations as England and France and reduced them to the status of third rate nations. Socialism in Scandinavia has reduced it to an economic level even less than that of England. In the United States leftist ideas have turned our country into the increasingly sick society it has become.

So until this coalition of leftist can point to a single successful instance of where their leftist philosophy has improved a country, or a people, rather than to the spectacular political failures the left has precipitated in any place into which its poisonous philosophy has been introduced, they have no right to demand anything of anybody. Leftist, the most spectacular political failures in all of history, have no standing to demand that Southerners accept anything that flows from their false philosophy. And of all people, leftist have the least demand on Southerners, the people who formed, guided, expanded and gave them a great country.

The Confederate flag is a symbol. It stands for the people who had the spirit, the courage, and the intelligence to give the world its greatest governmental entity. As long as the Confederate flag flies there is hope that the terrible scourge leftists have placed on the world will pass. It represents the culture that produced the most wished for, the most just, and the finest political system on earth. And as long as the Confederate flies there is hope that the greatness that was once ours may someday be reestablished.

I never stated that you did. I asked those three simple questions in an attempt to ascertain your position. You refused to answer them. Instead you suggested that “if you have a point to make, go ahead in make it.” I did so: the suspension of the writ was being discussed by others, and I presented my “point” in those terms.

What are you complaining about?

Go back and read you posts. You didn’t present any point. You were playing 20 questions. I never talked about the writ not did I follow the discussion of the writ. You never mentioned the writ in your queeries to me. Am I supposed to read your mind as to what you wanted to talk about? You jumped all over my case for debunking H.Askton when he claimed Article V allowed secession based on the sufferage of Senators clause in Article V. I saw no discussion of the writ it that exchange or any others between he, you or I until this latest post, and I fail to see what relationship writ has with Article V.

BTW. That noted constitutional scholar (snicker, sniker) H.Askton is slicing and dicing the Constitution as we speak over here in post #701. He claimed that Article III Section 2 says that Jeff Davis would have to been tried before the Supreme Court (and found innocent) not a jury trial if he had been charged with Treason because he was a ‘State Official” or some such nonsense. I gave him a detailed rebuttal, with citations and case law in # 710 if you care to honor us with your vast and, IYO, superior intellect.

On the same note he was strongly in favor of a common language and a common religion (with minor shades of differences, of course).

Do you have a source for that?

Yes. From his Farewell Address we have this:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

In the above paragraph Washington defined patriotism. He also wrote this ...

The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles. You have in a common cause fought & triumphed together--The independence & liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts--of common dangers, sufferings and successes.

Now, regarding a common language (beyond the implied coverage in the previous quotes). . . First, in his address to Trenton, New Jersey, Citizens, July 20, 1796:

The assurances of your determination to pursue such a line of conduct as will, on your part, ensure the continuance of peace and prosperity to our Country, are no less pleasing to me, than the belief which you express, that your address conveys,24 "the common sentiments and common language of the Citizens of the State of New Jersey."

In his address to the Continental Congress on Feb 20, 1777, regarding the commissioning of French officers, he wrote:

Their ignorance of our language, and their inability to recruit Men, are unsurmountable obstacles to their being ingrafted into our Continental Battalions, for our Officers, who have raised their Men, and have served thro' the War, upon pay, that has hitherto not borne their Expences, would be disgusted, if Foreigners were put over their heads, and I assure you few or none of these Gentlemen look lower than Field Officer's Commissions . . . Suppose they were told, in general, that no Man could obtain a Commission, except he could raise a number of Men, in proportion to his Rank; This would effectually stop the Mouths of Common Applyers, and would leave us at liberty to make provision for Gentlemen of undoubted Military Characters and Merit, who would be very useful to us as soon as they acquired our Language. The letter was read in Congress March 12. On March 13 Congress directed the Committee of Secret Correspondence to write to the ministers and agents abroad "to discourage all gentlemen from coming to America with expectation of employment in the service, unless they are masters of our language, and have the best recommendations." On March 14 Congress passed a resolve that no commissions should be given to foreign to officers unless they were well acquainted with the English language

To the CC regarding Le Fayette, he wrote:

"His conduct with respect to them stands in a favorable point of view, having interested himself to remove their uneasiness and urged the impropriety of their making any unfavorable representations upon their arrival at home, and in all his letters has placed our affairs in the best situation he could. Besides, he is sensible, discreet in his Manner, has made great proficiency in our Language and from the disposition he discovered at the Battle of Brandy Wine, possesses a large share of bravery and Military ardor.

And again to the CC, he wrote:"

What is to be done with the foreign officers who have been commissioned and never designated to any particular command, and who cannot, without displacing others, be brought into the line? Such of them as possess a competency of military knowledge and are otherwise men of character, I have sometimes thought, if they understood enough of our language, might be employed as Assistant inspectors.

To the Count Casimir Pulaski, he wrote on 1778:

I must caution you against a fondness for introducing foreigners into the Service; their ignorance of the Language of the Country and of the genius and manners of the people, frequently occasion difficulties and disgusts which we should not run the risque of, Unless it be in favour of extraordinary Talents and good Qualities.

And, finally, the clincher, to Lafayette on Jan 10, 1778

For I love to indulge the contemplation of human nature in a progressive state of improvement and melioration; and if the idea would not be considered visionary and chimerical, I could fondly hope, that the present plan of the great Potentate of the North might, in some measure, lay the foundation for that assimilation of language, which, producing assimilation of manners and interests, which, should one day remove many of the causes of hostility from amongst mankind.

Or, maybe this is the clincher (from a 1794 letter to John Adams):

My opinion, with respect to emigration, is, that except of useful Mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement: while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people.

I am sure there are other fine examples. But, in general, as afore-mentioned, Washington desired a common language, customs, religion, and manners for our nation.

"All powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State.
“To be sure, when the Tenth Amendment uses the phrase -the people,- it does not specify whether it is referring to the people of each State or the people of the Nation as a whole. But the latter interpretation would make the Amendment pointless...it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation...”
Just wondering if you were going to call Justice Thomas, the Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Scalia 'liars:' after all, they have stated, in print (quoted above for your edification ;>), that the people referred to by the Tenth Amendment are "the people of each State." Or will you continue to proclaim your "pointless" and 'nonsensical' argument that the amendment refers to "the people of the Nation as a whole?"
The world wonders...

I don't see you quoting Justice Story any more. I would surmise that this due to the fact that I quoted part of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee in which he categorically states that the people are the sovereigns of the county, and not the states.

As I said perhaps in another thread, I don't even quote Texas v White because it is post ACW. I can't imagine what this stuff from the modern court has to do with the crisis of disunion in the 19th century.

As you well know, Washington, Madison, Chief Justice Jay, Justice WIlson, Chief Justice Marshall, Andrew Jackson and many many others, including the loyal Union men who defended your right to spout this crap with their lives, saw things differently.

You are embarked on a disinformation campaign. Anyone who considers the whole record will not accept your interpretation. But, to humor, you, get back to me when Justice Scalia et al take a position that unilateral state secession is allowed under our laws.

Walt

Liberalism is disunion. It's purpose is to divide, not unite.

Your comment is nonsense on its face.

Liberals may be misguided, but it's ludicrous to say they cannot or do not love this country.

But here's something from Washington:

"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."

George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786

Wasn't Washington being liberal when he wrote this?

I don't think Washington means the same thing when he uses the term 'liberal' that you do, but your statement above is just kneejerk reaction at its worst.

Walt

Go back and read you posts. You didn’t present any point.

Perhaps you should go back and read the posts:

Post #364
“I believe Mr. Madison noted in The Federalist Papers that the violation of a compact by one party was grounds for the abrogation of the compact by the other parties. But perhaps we should simply refer to Mr. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions, which post-date the ratification of the Constitution, and were written with full knowledge of the Constitution including the Bill of Rights...”

“Mr. Jefferson declares that each State “has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” (Later in the Resolutions, he cites the Tenth Amendment as grounds for State action...)”

“Mr. Jefferson apparently believed that the States, as parties to the compact, were free to judge for themselves regarding "necessary and proper" means. Not so the federal government, which was a creature of the compact rather than a party to it. Perhaps we should refer to Mr. Madison’s comments regarding other constitutional clauses which have been ‘inflated’ beyond a “plain” reading of the text, and beyond the Founders intent (pardon the length of the quote – it all appeared applicable)...”

“You are certainly free to reach your own conclusions. The fact remains: the Constitution nowhere ‘plainly’ prohibits secession – but it does quite ‘plainly’ reserve all powers “not delegated...nor prohibited” to the States and their people. As for Mr. Webster, I will leave you with the following...”

Post #372
“Actually, it is not up to you (or I) to judge regarding the tolerability (or lack thereof ) of federal oppression faced by the citizens of the Southern States. As Mr. Jefferson noted...”

Etc., etc., etc...

Your suggestion that I “didn’t present any point” is obviously ludicrous. Do you bother to read the posts to which you reply?

You were playing 20 questions. I never talked about the writ not did I follow the discussion of the writ. You never mentioned the writ in your queeries to me. Am I supposed to read your mind as to what you wanted to talk about?

I did not think anything other than a rudimentary command of the English language was required to understand the following:

“You state that the clause in question ‘has to do with amending the Constitution.’ I was wondering: did you reach that conclusion from the location of the clause in Article V...? Does the location of the clause have significance? Does the clause apply exclusively to Article V concerns (constitutional amendment)?”

Simple questions – for most people.

I gave him a detailed rebuttal, with citations and case law in # 710..

Really? Perhaps you should provide “a detailed rebuttal, with citations” to one of my posts quoted above. Your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't quite measure up...

;>)

I don't see you quoting Justice Story any more. I would surmise that this due to the fact that I quoted part of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee in which he categorically states that the people are the sovereigns of the county, and not the states.

Back to your ‘straw man’ arguments? (The citations I provided were in reference to the suspension of the writ, not in reference to your erroneous and revisionist interpretation of the phrase “the people.”) Or are you stating that Mr. Lincoln could lawfully suspend the writ because “the people are the sovereigns of the count[r]y, and not the states?”

As I have stated previously, I post court rulings only for the benefit of judicial cultists such as yourself. It is extremely entertaining to watch your logical contortions and mental gymnastics, as you attempt to present some rulings as ‘the word of God,’ and others (from the same judges and the same courts ;>) as complete nonsense. Simply laughable...

I can't imagine what this stuff from the modern court has to do with the crisis of disunion in the 19th century.

(Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look? You’ve been arguing for years that only the high court may say what the Constitution means. Tell us, Walt: does the current high court somehow not qualify? Or is it only the opinions of the conservative justices that you ignore? You don’t even honor your own arguments... )

Despite your blatant hypocrisy, I am more than happy to explain why I posted "this stuff." Some time ago, I provided an interpretation of the Tenth Amendment. You called me a liar. Since you have been arguing for years that only the high court may say what the Constitution means, I provided indisputable proof that Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Scalia shared my view. I then asked if you were about to call them liars as well.

Care to answer the question? Or will you provide your usual “logical contortions and mental gymnastics” for our entertainment?

Yes, we have discussed the revisionist nonsense spouted by Mr. Justice Jay, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, and others regarding the people of the “-whole-“ nation as “parties” to the constitutional compact. The words of Mr. Madison, Mr. Jefferson, and Article VII of the United States Constitution (not to mention those of Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Scalia) prove otherwise. By the way, I find your platitudes concerning my “right to spout this crap [i.e., historically verifiable fact]” rather amusing, given your previous veiled threats regarding my arrest by federal authorities, apparently for the crime of quoting the words of Thomas Jefferson.

You are embarked on a disinformation campaign. Anyone who considers the whole record will not accept your interpretation.

ROTFLMAO! Does this mean you are finally ready to discuss the secession of the ratifying States from the not-so-perpetual-union’ formed under the Articles? Not yet? How about just one State? Hmm? We'll even make it a Northern State: how about New York? No? What about Rhode Island? No again? Well, perhaps you are finally willing to discuss the ‘federal-court-approved-but-absolutely-unconstitutional’ Alien and Sedition Acts? Please? Can't do it? How about just one of the acts - the sedition act? No? Pretty Please? ;>)

You’re a ‘dyed-in-the-wool’ hypocrite, Walt – but a thoroughly amusing ‘dyed-in-the-wool’ hypocrite...

;>)

But, to humor, you, get back to me when Justice Scalia et al take a position that unilateral state secession is allowed under our laws.

Right on schedule – you prove my point for me! Thank you! May I refer you to the beginning of your own post, where you stated:

“I can't imagine what this stuff from the modern court has to do with the crisis of disunion in the 19th century...”

‘Straw man’ arguments, ‘circular’ reasoning, and blatant hypocrisy – you, my friend, are a laugh...

;>)

I wrote: Liberalism is disunion. It's purpose is to divide, not unite.

You replied: Your comment is nonsense on its face. Liberals may be misguided, but it's ludicrous to say they cannot or do not love this country.

Only a liberal would defend liberals in such a manner. Only a liberal would be so blind to the evils of liberalism.

You wrote: But here's something from Washington: "What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."
George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786

Wasn't Washington being liberal when he wrote this?

No.

I don't think Washington means the same thing when he uses the term 'liberal' that you do, but your statement above is just kneejerk reaction at its worst.

Knee Jerk? LOL. Coming from a liberal that is pretty darn funny. But it makes me wonder: how on earth did you get so arrogant and so full of self-importance in a single life-time? Never mind. That is one trait of liberalism that I will never understand, nor care to.

BTW, your Washington quote was pretty lame, or, at least, un-inspiring. Maybe you should try some of his right-wing-extremist-type quotes, such as this anti-living-constitution quote: "If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." -- George Washington, Farewell Address --

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.